The title of Ron Suskind's riveting new book, "The One Percent Doctrine," refers to an operating principle that he says Vice President Dick Cheney articulated shortly after 9/11: in Mr. Suskind's words, "if there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction â€” and there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time â€” the United States must now act as if it were a certainty." He quotes Mr. Cheney saying that it's not about "our analysis," it's about "our response," and argues that this conviction effectively sidelines the traditional policymaking process of analysis and debate, making suspicion, not evidence, the new threshold for action.[

Click to expand...

Well I agree with the premise that you can't take a chance on terrorist getting WMD's a dirty bomb in NYC, Chicago, LA, Boston, DC?

This is something that the administration can't take a chance with.

A lot of the rest (based on the link, haven't read the book) is reports based
on unnamed sources. Who knows whether these sources heard what they claim or not?

I think the dichotomy here is that many think the WOT is only about OBL and 9-11 as a islotated criminal act and others see the WOT as a larger issue.

Seems to be some questions about the accuracy of some of the Authors facts.

In a new book, author Ron Suskind claims British Intelligence knew the U.S. was monitoring Mohammed Siddique Khan for his ties to a Virginia jihadist â€” and that he'd been banned from the country in 2003 for planning to attack U.S. synagogues.

Trouble is, the London Telegraph reports that the British Khan with Virginia connections who was placed on the U.S. no-fly list was not Mohammed Siddique Khan, who was teaching at a Yorkshire elementary school, but Mohammed Ajmal Khan, who's now serving 9 years in a British prison.

But Suskind insists there's been no mix-up, saying he's convinced the book is accurate.